Interesting Chart Hinting at Super Audio Advantages

Merging Technology, a maker of professional recording gear, posted a chart on different signals being processed by PCM sampling rates and DSD. I think the results show the cleanness of the DSD technology.

http://www.merging.com/

Select DSD/SACD on the left column menu for the chart.

There are, no doubt, some advantages of PCM, but I think this hints at what DSD can do.

 

Yeah, its all great, but they still compare everything to analog. My thought is, why try to emulate analog, and spend tons of money doing so, when you can just use analog?

 

Depends on "you." If "you" is a recording studio, sure. But analog is harder to mass-produce than digital, isn't it? (Real question, by the way.) Playback is certainly less fiddly.

 

Good point but let me take a stab at it....we live in a digital world so perhaps DSD is a higher resolution solution to approaching the master tape in a more convenient form without many of the disadvantages of earlier PCM technology.

And as Gardo says, its a lot less fiddly or tweaky than a turntable playback system. As an audiophile I will probably get both at times and compare.

I think the big news here is how close to analog the DSD signal looks.

 

I certainly agree. I also agree that digital is easier to reproduce in the home than analog is. I was mainly saying what I said from the point of view of the recording studio. I think DSD reproduction in the home would be great, it would allow the average home user to get as close to the master tape as possible, without fiddling with turntables and such.

It is hard to say which is more difficult. They both have hard parts and easier parts. Analog is defiantly more precise, and requires more attention during the various stages from cutting to plating to pressing. This could make it more expensive, but not more difficult.

Yoohoo...Steve, where are you? you could anwser this much better than I

 

Isn't this why Sony developed DSD in the first place -- to produce a more robust form of the master tape? As I understand it, DSD was developed for archiving master tapes. The development of a consumer audio format based on DSD was a natural next step.

 

Exactly right Keith. The consumer side evolved from there once Sony realized it had something good and thought the audiophile community would have an interest. So far, they have been right judging from specialty labels signing up and SACD player sales.

 

Well it's nice to finally have an explanation of what that chart actually means. Allen Wright has been using it for a while:

http://www.vacuumstate.com/VARIOUS/SACD_2003.pdf

 

Thanks for the link Gabe. I will read it later when I have more time.

 

Gabe,

I did not read a specific explanation of the chart...I will check in with Allen and see if he can pass along more information on the chart however. I will also check the website in other areas and see if he has expanded on the chart description.

 

Great thread

 

Lee, Any word from Allen on this?

 

Personally, I highly doubt that the chart came from Vacuum state. I'm sure it was the other way around.

 

When I record a session on 2" analog (Studer A80) I have to compensate for what the tape, with its added distortion, harmonics, noise and compression, will do to my audio. I find myself having to EQ things to get them back to the way they originally sounded. I hate to say it but I look at analog multitracks as an effects processor and not a transparent medium. If I want to get back what I put in I record 24/96 (the highest resolution available to me now). I'm excited for the day I can finally record everything in DSD. Now that will be transparent!

 

I ment that the actual cutting process of an analog record was precise, not the tape recording.

Its funny that you say that. With my recordings, I have found the opposite to be true. When I record analog, I do indeed get a different sound out, but I usually don't have to eq much, I find the artifacts of analog recording pleasing. Have you tried Quantegy GP9 tape? If not, you should. It is a +9 tape, it is very quiet, and very transparent. I will never record totally to digital. I really love the sound of tape, and I am never going to throw that away. In my studio, fidelity comes before ease of use. I will have digital available, like I do now, so that I can mix digital sources, but even then, I would mix to tape, as I do now, and then come back into the computer at the desired resolution.

(sorry to thread crap )

 

I print to 30 ips 1/2" analog when I mix records. I like it for the tape compression and my mastering engineer usually likes it better than 24/96. It just adds something to the recording that digital doesn't.

I am now recording most everything to hard disk. All the producers that use me can't work without the editing capabilities. Analog tape would just restrain what they want to do.

Besides, I've worked on vocal lines or solos so long that the tape will actually start to show wear. At that point I have to transfer to digital anyway.

Lots of audiophile favorites have been recorded to 16 bit and nobody seems to care. It all comes down to how well it's recorded, mixed and mastered. The song counts for a lot too. No need for any of this if the music sucks.

 

Very true! As I always say, a good performance will always be a good performance, even if the recording is bad.